Sun Tzu - The Art of War
- Ham
- A 701 error is fine too.
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:11 pm
- Location: Wetting my whistle at the watering hole
Byzantines=/=Romans.Porphyrogenitus wrote:When the guy who is writing your manuals (Nikephoros II) is called the "Pale Death of the Saracens" by the Arabs then you know he must be doing something right. He's also the guy who retook Crete on his first go, after centuries of the empire failing no matter what it threw at the place.
Maurice Tiberius was pretty good too, and the Strategikon was his.
stubby wrote: my floppy penis gets first dibs on it for tradition's sake, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll want to stick around long enough to play.
Wightbagel died for our sins.
- Silverdream
- Nice use of noise
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:33 pm
- Location: Sweating like a guy in a basketball manga
Plus, Rome was the Grandfather of the biggest losers ever.
This sig is too fucking large: show anyway
- RagnarokRose
- u a MILLION wus and only then shall you become the MISTRESS
- Posts: 3941
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:03 pm
I've got a great book for you to read.
H.G. Wells: Little Wars
The first publication of a wargame- a public war game, that people played. It's a rather interesting read.
H.G. Wells: Little Wars
The first publication of a wargame- a public war game, that people played. It's a rather interesting read.
she/her | formerly known as ross_varn | exiled for the good of the f.e.l.c.
- Porphyrogenitus
- Officer
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:42 pm
- Location: Aurora, Indiana, United States, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
- Contact:
The Roman Empire had two capitals after Theodosius: Ravenna and Constantinople. Ravenna fell to barbarians c 476, but even those same barbarians acknowledged the remaining emperor in Constantinople as the sole remaining Roman emperor (there's actually a strong argument that the so-called emperor who was deposed in 476 wasn't even legitimate anyway, making the one in Constantinople the sole Roman emperor from an earlier date). He didn't like even a potentially false Roman emperor being deposed by barbarians, so he sent his good buddy Theodoric to take them out and rule as his client king in Italy (hence the Gothic kingdom was founded).BFenix wrote:Wait, what? Romans, middle ages? Someone needs to pay attention to History class. The end of the Roman Empire marks the Beginning of the Middle Ages.BFenix wrote:Ham701 wrote:Medieval......Romans. I wouldn't trust that text if I were you, inability to control much territory and all.
After Justinian's client and ally Amalasuntha got herself assassinated, Justinian sent Belisarius and Narses to bring Italy fully into the empire once more, and it retained at least a foothold in Italy until the Normans invaded Sicily and Italy several centuries later.
The end of the Roman Empire in 1453 is one marker of the beginning of the Renaissance. The middle ages began with the rise of Islam c the 630s, and Late Antiquity began c the rise of Diocletian and Constantine (which marked the end of the Classical period).
0 Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine Inheritance. To our Rulers grant victories over the barbarians, and by Thy Cross protect Thine own Estate.
- BFenix
- Pooplord
- Posts: 4112
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:13 pm
- Location: City Of Ravens (Lisbon)
- Contact:
I don't think so. I forgot "our" term of the Middle Ages isin't the same for you guys. Medieval Ages = Renaissance. Its because for us the Renaissance period is the way out of the Middles Ages.stubby wrote:Porphyrogenitus wrote:The end of the Roman Empire in 1453 is one marker of the beginning of the Renaissance. The middle ages began with the rise of Islam c the 630s, and Late Antiquity began c the rise of Diocletian and Constantine (which marked the end of the Classical period).
- Silverdream
- Nice use of noise
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:33 pm
- Location: Sweating like a guy in a basketball manga
Really? In Portugal they view the renaissance as the middle ages?BFenix wrote:I don't think so. I forgot "our" term of the Middle Ages isin't the same for you guys. Medieval Ages = Renaissance. Its because for us the Renaissance period is the way out of the Middles Ages.stubby wrote:Porphyrogenitus wrote:The end of the Roman Empire in 1453 is one marker of the beginning of the Renaissance. The middle ages began with the rise of Islam c the 630s, and Late Antiquity began c the rise of Diocletian and Constantine (which marked the end of the Classical period).
This sig is too fucking large: show anyway
- Porphyrogenitus
- Officer
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:42 pm
- Location: Aurora, Indiana, United States, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
- Contact:
In the US there are pretty much two schools of thought that I'm aware of.
The first is the old-school, Gibbon is awesome, the Middle Ages were all about Feudal everything, the Dark Ages came before the Middle Ages and were a time when religious superstitions resulted in a massive loss of knowledge and technology, and the Roman Empire ended in 476 when the last emperor was deposed.
The second is that Gibbon is a biased punk, Feudalism is a largely useless term that was pretty much invented by Renaissance-era bureaucrats trying to justify their monarchs' attempts to centralize power, and the Roman Empire ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. It pretty much says that there was the Classical Period (likely divided up a bunch, but I'm not specialized into that field so I wouldn't be able to tell you how), followed by Late Antiquity (a sort of transitional period between the Classical and Medieval eras, lots of changes going on technologically, militarily, politically, socially, etc), Early Medieval (rise of Islam to just before the First Crusade pretty much), High Medieval (Crusades period until the start of the Hundred Years War), Late Medieval (pretty much the start of the Hundred Years War to the fall of Constantinople and the flight of the scholars and books from that city to the west), then the Renaissance, then the Reformation, then the Enlightenment, then the Early Modern, and so on.
I'd be rather surprised if there weren't other naming protocols being taught elsewhere, and I'd imagine that they have their own reasons for doing things the way they do. The Iberian peninsula, for instance, I'd imagine would hinge a lot of things around the Reconquista, while France very likely is all about the various stages in the development of their monarchy. My impression is that the first way mentioned above is based on the predominant British view, at least as of a few decades ago, but it has been under heavy attack by contemporary academics.
The first is the old-school, Gibbon is awesome, the Middle Ages were all about Feudal everything, the Dark Ages came before the Middle Ages and were a time when religious superstitions resulted in a massive loss of knowledge and technology, and the Roman Empire ended in 476 when the last emperor was deposed.
The second is that Gibbon is a biased punk, Feudalism is a largely useless term that was pretty much invented by Renaissance-era bureaucrats trying to justify their monarchs' attempts to centralize power, and the Roman Empire ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. It pretty much says that there was the Classical Period (likely divided up a bunch, but I'm not specialized into that field so I wouldn't be able to tell you how), followed by Late Antiquity (a sort of transitional period between the Classical and Medieval eras, lots of changes going on technologically, militarily, politically, socially, etc), Early Medieval (rise of Islam to just before the First Crusade pretty much), High Medieval (Crusades period until the start of the Hundred Years War), Late Medieval (pretty much the start of the Hundred Years War to the fall of Constantinople and the flight of the scholars and books from that city to the west), then the Renaissance, then the Reformation, then the Enlightenment, then the Early Modern, and so on.
I'd be rather surprised if there weren't other naming protocols being taught elsewhere, and I'd imagine that they have their own reasons for doing things the way they do. The Iberian peninsula, for instance, I'd imagine would hinge a lot of things around the Reconquista, while France very likely is all about the various stages in the development of their monarchy. My impression is that the first way mentioned above is based on the predominant British view, at least as of a few decades ago, but it has been under heavy attack by contemporary academics.
0 Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine Inheritance. To our Rulers grant victories over the barbarians, and by Thy Cross protect Thine own Estate.
- BFenix
- Pooplord
- Posts: 4112
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:13 pm
- Location: City Of Ravens (Lisbon)
- Contact:
It's not a matter of view but a matter of terms. We call the Middles Ages the period that started when the Roman Empire fell and the birth of the Renaissance period (a time period in European history). The revolution of art, science and culture that occurred between the XIII and the XVII centuries. You know, the time of geniuses and great artists, like Da Vinci. It's normal that the Americans don't have it since when it ended, America was practically being colonized.Silverdream wrote:Really? In Portugal they view the renaissance as the middle ages?BFenix wrote:I don't think so. I forgot "our" term of the Middle Ages isin't the same for you guys. Medieval Ages = Renaissance. Its because for us the Renaissance period is the way out of the Middles Ages.stubby wrote:Porphyrogenitus wrote:The end of the Roman Empire in 1453 is one marker of the beginning of the Renaissance. The middle ages began with the rise of Islam c the 630s, and Late Antiquity began c the rise of Diocletian and Constantine (which marked the end of the Classical period).
Oh and Ham, go troll someone else.